jayjwa wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Abuse wrote:
>>-> I have no problem with an ISP closing a port if there is a way that will not
>-> stop normal web functions from being done. Blocking port 25 to other email
>-> servers than the ISPs email server does not stop normal email function it just
>-> requires a little configuration change.
>>That requires more that a little config change, that requires using
>someone else's server and therefor, giving up control of your email. There
>is alot more to the Internet than just 'the web'. I for one dislike this
>webmail that has become so popular with ISP's because it usually requires
>scripting/Javascript to operate and full graphics, two things that I have
>to fire up a full X Window environment for, rather than just using a
>simple command line command to jot down a quick note to someone. If all
>you use is Windows that this probably doesn't make sense, but I like how
>easy and fast it is to use the linux console without having to start up an
>X11 session.
>>The ability to mail directly is functionality, and I don't see why I
>should lose this functionality being that I am not abusing it. I know I
>could "smarthost", but I enjoy running my own server, mails get where they
>are going faster, I know what the server said on the other end instead of
>assuming the mail made it because I see no more of it, and I don't have to
>content with misbehaving spam filters. What I write to people and what
>they say back is important to me, and I don't want to lose even one email
>of that to some filter that thought something was spam when it wasn't.
>>If we consider incoming too, then there is even more reason have your own
>server, as then I control what can come in at the door. It must be
>working, because by and large I don't see much spam, and only a few US
>ISP's whom have been cold towards me and of couse Chinanet do a block.
>>First it was 135-139,445 that all the ISP's started blocking, now many
>do/consider blocking 25. If this continues maybe ftp 21/22 is next due it
>being 'unsecure' plain text or possibly 6667? That's IRC, and we've all
>heard enough of IRC-bots this part week.
>>If someone wants to block, run a firewall: that services that one person
>without hindering everyone else.
>>-> I am not sure stupidity is the problem, it is ignorance. MS advertises that
>-> you do not need to know anything to use Windows so you get a lot of people
>-> online that do not have any idea that anything bad could happen. I put most of
>-> the blame on MS, they should configure Windows so it is secure for the average
>-> no nothing user, but they will not so we have to put up with a lot of zombied
>-> machines.
>>Agreed. It should have been shipped out opposite of what it is currently;
>ship all secured and closed up. If you want to run services/servers and
>open up access than you should have to learn how to enable it. Hopefully
>within that time they will pick up safe habits.
>>>j
>>>Six months ago, my home provider started blocking port 25 outgoing for
residential customers. If you want to send mail, there is a web form to
add your DSL router's mac address, then reboot the DSL router to gain
the access. Easy and simple to do for someone who knows what port 25 is.
Personnel who have the knowledge necessary can still do what they need,
but the average home user is no longer able to (unknowingly) start up a
mailer and start blasting out spam.
Although it does not stop the underlying problem of insecure operating
systems and malware, it does force the end-user to learn a bit about how
email works.
--don--